Receipt of the Holy Spirit and Baptism

I am currently studying and doing a read through of the four Gospels and Acts. One thing I've been paying particular attention to is Baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. A lot of that has to do with questions I've received or heard from family/friends on what Baptism actually means for the receiver. This has lead me to research other denominations beliefs and my desire in general to refute the belief that baptism is merely a symbol. I believe the Gospels and Jesus own teaching make it very clear that Baptism is a means of grace and Peter confirms in Acts 2:38 Repent/be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (summarized). So it is my understanding that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, if not already received through the hearing of the Word. So Baptism is more than just a recognition of faith, or an act we perform to confirm our belief etc (as many denominations claim).

Reading further into Acts however, I've come across a few verses so far that have raised questions in my mind that I don't have great answers to. I don't think these verses refute the overwhelming evidence to Baptism being more than just a symbol. However if I were to attempt to make an apologetic argument for Baptism as a means of grace and receipt of the Holy Spirit and was confronted with these verses, I don't believe I'd have a good response. So I'm curious what others have to say.

Acts 8: 14-17 "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

The context of the surrounding passages seems to be about a man who wants to buy the ability to disperse the Holy Spirit, so perhaps this specific sections should be looked at more in that lens. It appears however that you have a group of people who heard the word and were baptized in the name of Jesus but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Only when Peter/John laid their hands on them did they receive the spirit. I'm curious if this verse could be used as an argument in favor of baptism being 'just a symbol' (I don't believe that to be true, but my goal would be to argue soundly against that). So in that thinking, a few possible answers I have are as follows. Perhaps the portion "only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" is indicating they hadn't received baptism in the name of the Trinity. Perhaps, the ordering of things is jumbled a little in this verse, much like the gospels are not always ordered chronologically, but ordered by events or themes. Perhaps the church is functioning a little differently in the early days when the Spirit has just begun to come to believers. Or perhaps as I mentioned before, this section really isn't about baptism but more about the attempted purchasing of apostleship and should be looked at through that lens. I'm not particularly satisfied from an apologist standpoint of any of those answers, so I'm curious what others have to say on this.

Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

In the context of this verse, Peter is preaching the Gospel to this house of gentiles. Upon doing so, they receive the Holy Spirit (through the Word it appears). They are then baptized by Peter and or the disciples who came with him. I feel like this is one of those examples where a Baptist for instance might say "SEE the believer came to faith, received the gifts, and was baptized as a sign". I think the overall context is that the scripture here is attempting to show that the Holy Spirit belongs to not only Jews but Gentiles as well, so maybe that is the answer I am seeking (the context). And I do think the overall verse agrees with LCMS teaching that faith and the Spirit come through the Word as well as the sacraments. Is there a better response to the counterpoint?

These are just two cherrypicked examples I felt that someone from an opposing viewpoint might use to explain away Baptism as just a symbol. Perhaps I've answered my own questions in that you need to take a further look at the context of the surrounding verses/chapter. But I'm hopeful for any insight or further explanations that might marry these verses to the LCMS viewpoint. Thanks!